The court upholds that review jurisdiction does not permit relitigation of issues already addressed and dismissed.

Muralee Krishna S., J.

This review petition is filed by the petitioners in O.P.(KAT)No.430 of 2025, under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, claiming that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 18.11.2025 passed by this Court in that original petition.

2. O.P.(KAT)No.430 of 2025 was one filed by the applicants in O.A.No.1173 of 2025 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (‘the Tribunal’ for short), invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P2 order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Tribunal, whereby the Original application filed by the petitioners to direct the 2^nd respondent to effect transfer of the petitioners to their home district/field of choice, subject to the availability of the vacancies as a separate class before implementing online mode transfer, and other ancillary reliefs was dismissed.

3. In the judgment dated 18.11.2025, this Court observed that from the records and from the submissions made at the bar, it was noticed that before approaching the Tribunal, the petitioners did not file any representation before the statutory authority concerned seeking transfer to their home district/stations of their choice. Without making any request for transfer before the authority concerned, the petitioners cannot seek direction to grant that relief. In such circumstances, this Court did not find merit in the original application and dismissed the original petition, upholding the order of the Tribunal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners had submitted Annexure A2 and A4 to A8 representations before the 2^nd respondent seeking transfer to their home district. However, the said representations were not produced either before the Tribunal or before this Court, which resulted in the passing of the judgment dated 18.11.2025 against the petitioners in the original petition. Now the petitioners produced those documents along with the review petition, and hence the judgment of this Court passed in the original petition may be reviewed.

6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the petitioners have no case that Annexures A2 and A4 to A8 documents were not in their possession at the time of disposal of the original application or the original petition. The petitioners cannot now produce the documents which they ought to have produced in the original proceedings and contend that if those documents were before this Court, the result of the original petition would have been otherwise. There is no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment.

7. In order to understand the circumstances that entitle the court to exercise its power of review, it would be appropriate to go through the provisions concerned as well as the law on the point laid down by the judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court. Section 114 and Order XLVII of CPC are the relevant provisions as far as the review of a judgment or order of a Court is concerned.

8. Section 114 of the CPC reads thus:

“114. Review Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order t